Case Law Flashcards
The neighbour principle
Donoghue v Stevenson
Three part formulation for establishing duty in a novel situation (foreseeability, proximity, fair just and reasonable)
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
Existing duty of care
Nettleship v Weston
(Caparo) Would a reasonable person have foreseen a risk of harm to the claimant as a result of defendant’s acts or omissions?
Smith v Littlewoods Organisations Ltd
(Caparo) Was there sufficient proximity between the claimant and defendant?
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control
(Caparo) Is it fair just and reasonable on public policy grounds to impose a duty of care?
L and Another v Reading Borough Council and Others
Courts are reluctant to impose a duty on statutory authorities (1) but not blanket immunity, generally duty will not be imposed for an omission (2)
(1) Hill v CC of West Yorkshire
(2) Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire
Sorrow and grief cannot be compensated
Hinz v Berry
Primary victim is someone in zone of danger to whom physical harm was reasonably foreseeable
Page v Smith
Established requirements of secondary victim as being; psych harm reasonably foreseeable, close relationship of love and affection, physically close, witness accident/aftermath with own unaided senses, sudden shock.
Alcock v CC of South Yorkshire
Standard of care is objective - did the person act as a reasonable person would have done?
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
When deciding standard of care, no allowance is made for an individual’s lack of knowledge or experience
Nettleship v Weston
When deciding standard of care, it is accepted that children do not have the same awareness of risk
Orchard v Lee
The standard of care is not normally adjusted to reflect the personal characteristics of the defendant
Dunnage v Randall and Another
Professionals must achieve the standard of an ordinary skilled person exercising their special skill
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
Medical professionals must act in accordance with the standard of reasonably competent professionals at the time provided the standard is reasonably supported
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority
Harm must be reasonably foreseeable - a person is not required to possess expertise beyond that of others in their own profession at the time of the event
Roe v Minister of Health
Has a breach occurred? Magnitude of risk - more likely the risk, the more foreseeable it is deemed to be and the more care should have been taken to avoid
Bolton v Stone
Has a breach occurred? Vulnerability of claimant - the higher the risk of serious injury, the more caution is required
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Has a breach occurred? Importance of D’s objective - if engaged in a socially desirable activity at the time of the breach, it may be justifiable to take an abnormal risk
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Has a breach occurred? Cost of avoiding harm - it is not necessary for D to go to extreme lengths to protect against a risk
Latimer v AEC
Causation in fact - the but for test
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee
Causation in fact - but for becomes more likely than not
Page v Smith (No 2)
Causation in fact - where an injury is indivisible, the but for test applies and it must be proved that it was more probable than not that D’s act caused the harm (over 50%)
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
Causation in fact - where injury is divisible, the material contribution test applies so D is liable if they contributed to the risk or to the harm. Liable for the proportion of damage to which they contributed.
Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw
Causation in fact - industrial disease cases where it is scientifically impossible to determine who is at fault there is no need to prove on balance of probabilities D caused harm, just that they materially increased the risk
McGhee v National Coal Board
Causation in fact - successive causes of harm. (1) further deliberate or negligent act will not end tortfeasor’s liability (2) natural disease will end it
(1) Baker v Willoughby
(2) Jobling v Associated Dairies
Novus actus interveniens - unforeseeable act of third party
Knightley v Johns
Novus actus interveniens - entirely unreasonable act of claimant
McKew v Holland
Causation in law (remoteness) - was the kind of damage reasonably foreseeable
The Wagon Mound
Causation in law - Thin skull rule, victim should be taken as found, d is liable for full extent of injury as long as some harm is foreseeable
Smith v Leech Brain
Control Test
Yewens v Noakes
Organisation Test
Cassidy v Minister of Health
Multiple Test
Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions
Vicariously liability - mutuality of obligation
Carmichael v National Power
Example of relationship between organisation and individual being “akin to employment”, meaning it could be fair to find the organisation vicariously liable.
Cox v Ministry of Justice
Employer can be vicariously liable for an act “closely connected” to the employee’s role
Lister v Hesley Hall
Ex turpi causa - complete defence if claimant was engaged in a criminal activity at time of alleged negligence
Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority
Ex turpi causa - inextricable link (a person cannot recover damages arising from a punishment imposed for an unlawful act)
Gray v Thames Trains Ltd and Another
Violenti non fit injuria - complete defence if claimant freely consented to risk of harm in full knowledge of risk they were taking
Stermer v Lawson
Contributory negligence, partly to blame for accident
Froom v Butcher / Fitzgerald v Lane
Contributory negligence, put themselves in dangerous position
Davies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) Ltd
Courts are reluctant to find a rescuer contributorily negligent
Harrison v British Railways Board
The dilemma principle - courts are less likely to find a claimant contributorily negligent if they were in a difficult situation
Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council
